Main site

Electronics AI agent · Manufacturing and test

Manufacturing & Test AI Agent

Read ATE and AOI results with the measurement uncertainty they carry, group defects and surface drift against the limits your engineers set, and assemble the pack for the named quality engineer, who decides.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your stack
Named engineer
Pre-disposition
After launch
Agent Care

What this agent does

Reports the measurement, not the verdict

In

  1. 01

    Where a lot finishes test, pull the ATE logs, AOI results and the configured limits from the sources on file.

  2. 02

    When a value lands near a limit, report it with the uncertainty the station's calibration record carries.

Reason

  1. 03

    Where a parameter is quoted, carry the test conditions and the station it was measured on.

  2. 04

    When defects repeat, group them by failure mode, site and reference designator.

  3. 05

    Where a chart signals out of control, surface it against the limits on file and leave those limits alone.

Decide

  1. 06

    When a part screens as anomalous against the configured criteria, raise it for quarantine and reporting.

  2. 07

    Route every lot to the named quality engineer for disposition.

Out

  1. 08

    Retain the readings, their uncertainty, the model version and the disposition for the period your sector sets.

  2. 09

    Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.

Product statement

The agent reports the measurement; the named quality engineer dispositions the lot, and the manufacturer owns the conformity statement.

Example workflow

One lot, test log to disposition

  1. 1Test results receivedATE log, AOI result, SPC feed or MES lot record
  2. 2Readings assembledMeasured values, their uncertainty, the test conditions and the configured limits
  3. 3Interpretation draftedMeasured values with uncertainty, grouped defects, drift flags and confidence
  4. 4Controls appliedUncertainty checks, limit-source checks, configured acceptance criteria and confidence threshold

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and no lot is dispositioned at any of them — the agent is reporting, and the engineer's lane opens at the confidence gate.

5DecisionSplits at the confidence threshold
High confidence

Goes to the quality engineer to decide.

Low confidence

Adds a metrology read first.

Engineer disposition

The report is held with its readings, its uncertainty and the confidence.

Accept · Amend · Send to metrology review

Accepted — the engineer decides

  1. 6MES and test systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
  2. 7Outcome evaluatedReading accuracy, engineer amendments, escapes and post-shipment field returns

Amendments

Every engineer amendment is counted in the evaluation.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required

8 items

  • Dispositioning a lot, or releasing product to ship.
    • Moving, widening or recomputing a control limit.
    • Overriding or closing an out-of-control signal.
    • Declaring a part authentic, or declaring it counterfeit.

  • Automation boundary

    Agent acts unaided

    • ✓Read ATE and AOI results back with the uncertainty they carry.
    • ✓Group defects by failure mode, site and designator.
    • ✓Surface drift against the limits already on file.
    • ✓Assemble the disposition pack and hold it for the named engineer.

    Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of the engineer's decision.

    • Setting the decision rule or the guard band.
    • Stating conformity against a specification limit.
    • Scrapping, reworking or downgrading material.
  • Changes to the limit sets, criteria or approval rules.

Example output

One test result, annotated

Everything the agent reports is attached to the reading it was taken from.

Test interpretation · single lot

Illustrative example
Lot
Power-module lot
Reported line
Quiescent current, reported with the uncertainty the station carries
Measured value
12.4 mA ± 0.3
Instrument of record
ATE station 04
Confidence
89%
Held for
Named quality engineer

As received

Taken from the ATE log and the station's calibration record — nothing on this side is judged by the agent.

Readings used

  • ATE station log
  • Calibration record
  • Gauge study on file

Why it reads this way

It sits within its own uncertainty of the limit — the call the engineer makes.

What the score decides

Below the configured threshold the report picks up a metrology read before the engineer sees it.

Action

AcceptAmendSend to metrology review

Value

Where AI adds value

The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.

Where the value lands

Value 01 – 04

Every lot

From the test systems

03Reporting

Report from the reading

Draw on the ATE log, the AOI result and the limits your engineers set from process data.

01Approved path

Read the result, not the verdict

Routine readings come back grouped, dated and stated with their uncertainty.

02Human review

Put the near-limit results first

Near-limit readings, drift signals and anomalous calls are marked, so the engineer reads where risk concentrates.

04

Build an evidence trail

The measurement, its uncertainty and the engineer who dispositioned it stay with the lot record.

Integrations

Typical integrations

Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.

  • Test and measurement

    • Teradyne
    • Advantest
    • Keysight
    • NI TestStand

  • Inspection systems

    • Koh Young
    • CyberOptics
    • Omron
    • Mirtec AOI

  • MES and quality

    • Siemens Opcenter
    • Critical Manufacturing

Agent

Manufacturing and test

  • Reads the result
  • States the uncertainty
  • Holds for disposition

  • SPC and analytics

    • InfinityQS
    • Minitab
    • JMP

  • Observability & evaluation

    • OpenTelemetry
    • Langfuse
    • Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.

Agent controls

Six layers between the model and the lot

The layers nest, and each says what it does not catch. The map below carries the rest.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defence

Inward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modePull back to raw result reporting when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt, limit-set and criteria changes — a new version is a new tool.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord the readings, their uncertainty, the model version and the disposition.Record
L3Engineer dispositionHold reports for the named engineer; it governs who decides, not whether the reading is right.Gate
L2Policy guardrailsTest reports against uncertainty, limit-source and criteria checks; a failure returns the report.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute low-confidence readings to a metrology read before the engineer sees them.Require review
Model coreReport produced — measured values with uncertainty, grouped defects and confidence
L1 – L2
Test whether a report may stand
L3
Puts the disposition in an engineer's hands
L4 – L5
Hold the measurement and the uncertainty it carried
L6
Reverts to raw result reporting when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the whole reading path — not only the number at the end.

Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.

Surface — the report the line sees

  1. E1Final-output evaluationDid every reported value match the log it was read from?
  2. E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent use the right limits, criteria and calibration record?
  3. E3Tool evaluationDid it read the correct lot, station and test step?
  4. E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence readings actually attract more engineer amendments?
  5. E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific production lines?
  6. E6Business outcomeHow many reports needed an amendment or a correction after the lot shipped?

Floor — the disposition the plant answers for

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes, each placed where it begins.

Agent lifecycle

Direction of processing →

  1. 01 · Retrieval

    1 mode

    • CB-03

      Superseded limit set

      Limits are read from a control plan the plant has replaced.

    Stage gathers

    Test logs, AOI results, limits and calibration records

  2. 02 · Reasoning

    2 modes

    • CB-04

      Uncertainty dropped

      A measured value is reported as a bare number, without its uncertainty.

    • CB-06

      Signal explained away

      A plausible narrative is offered where an investigation was due.

    Stage proposes

    Measured values, grouped defects and confidence

  3. 03 · Tool / write

    2 modes

    • CB-02

      Verdict stated as fact

      A near-limit reading is written up as a pass or a fail.

    • CB-05

      Defect group collapsed

      Distinct failure modes are merged under one heading.

    Stage writes

    Only where write access and approval policy allow it

  4. 04 · Output

    1 mode

    • CB-01

      Limit source unstated

      A drift flag is raised without naming the limits behind it.

    Stage returns

    The report the engineer dispositions the lot from

  5. 05 · Change / Version

    1 mode

    • CB-07

      Silent threshold drift

      A model or config change moves what the agent calls anomalous.

    Stage tracks

    Model, prompt, limit sets and criteria config

  • Sev-1 · a held act performed by the agent
  • Sev-2 · a wrong reading reaches the engineer
  • Sev-3 · a source degrades, report goes to review
See the complete Electronics failure-mode catalogue

Affected slices

Overall accuracy can hide one line

Near-limit measurements are the slice an aggregate buries — a small share of readings, most of the amendments. Nestack reports the amendment rate by slice, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate

Illustrative example
SliceFailure rateLiftLift vs. thresholdStatus
Near-limit measurements4.9%3.9×Review
Marginal AOI calls3.4%2.7×Review
Recalibrated stations2.5%2.0×Watch
Mature high-volume lines0.9%0.7×Normal

Bar: amendment-rate lift vs. the mature-line baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold

2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

A cycle ends in a case, not a conclusion

Nothing closes on a review meeting. It closes on a case the next release has to pass, and that suite is what the next lot dispositioned is measured against.

Improvement cycle · five stages

Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

  1. 01

    Detect

    Amendment rate rises in a reading slice.

  2. 02

    Diagnose

    If the reading and the log disagree, the trail is followed until one limit set, station or prompt accounts for it.

  3. 03

    Improve

    Every change ships against a version with the lots attached.

  4. 04

    Verify

    The release is blocked while an affected case fails.

  5. 05

    Learn

    The case becomes permanent, and the disposition rules are re-tested.

  6. Learn → Detect

    The return edge. The suite the next lot meets is one case longer.

Typical build scope

Twelve workstreams across six weeks

The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, reporting workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream

Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6

  1. 01Test-floor workflow discovery and boundary definition.Week 1
  2. 02ATE, AOI and MES source assessment.Week 1, Week 2
  3. 03Limit set, decision rule and acceptance-criteria mapping.Week 1, Week 2
  4. 04Result ingestion and unit normalisation.Week 2
  5. 05Reading logic and uncertainty binding.Week 2, Week 3
  6. 06Confidence scoring and drift routing.Week 3
  7. 07Engineer disposition workflow.Week 3, Week 4
  8. 08MES and test-system integration.Week 5
  9. 09Uncertainty and limit cases.Week 4, Week 5
  10. 10Guardrails and disposition controls.Week 4
  11. 11Lot-trail instrumentation.Week 5, Week 6
  12. 12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.Week 6

12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel

Final scope and sequence confirmed in discovery

Engagement tiers

What each tier includes

Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.

Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne line, one productProductionProduction test systemsAdvancedMultiple plants / lines
Introduced at Pilot
Reading to your limits and criteria✓✓✓
Engineer disposition✓✓✓
Measurement-consistency baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by line and product—✓✓
Disposition workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
MES and test-system integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-standard limit rules——✓
Multi-stage quality approvals——✓
High lot volume——✓
Multi-plant disposition controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build price
Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from build
Build pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.

What we need from you

What you bring, and what we build with it

Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.

  1. 01Your test programmes and their limit sets

    Result ingestion and reading mapping

    Week 1

  2. 02Representative logs already dispositioned

    Reading baseline, uncertainty binding and defect grouping

    Week 2

  3. 03Your decision rule and acceptance criteria

    Limit set, decision rule and acceptance-criteria mapping

    Week 1

  4. 04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports

    ATE, AOI and MES assessment, then integration setup

    Week 2

  5. 05Dispositions you would not want repeated

    Limit cases and failure-mode testing

    Week 4

  6. 06What a measurement is never allowed to decide

    Confidence scoring, drift routing, guardrails and disposition controls

    Week 3

  7. 07Named quality engineers to disposition lots

    Engineer disposition workflow, then pilot and production validation

    Weeks 5–6

Nothing else is required

Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.

Delivery timeline

Four phases across six weeks

The bands sit on the weeks the work occupies, so the fifth carries evaluation and launch together.

Phase

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

  1. DiscoveryW1
  2. BuildW2 – W3
  3. EvaluateW4 – W5
  4. Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6

Week focus

W1Test workflow discovery, limit mapping and the automation boundary

W2Test-source integration and the reading baseline

W3Reporting workflow, confidence logic and disposition controls

W4Evaluation suite, uncertainty checks and failure-mode testing

W5MES integration, pilot lots and targeted corrections

W6One production run dispositioned under the quality team, then handover

Reading the band
Each bar covers only the weeks its work is named in. The week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6
The run closes validation and Agent Care picks up monitoring.
Duration
Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Electronics AI agent

Build a test agent around your limits and your quality engineers.

Show us a week of test logs and the limits behind them. You bring the decision rule, the acceptance criteria and the engineer who dispositions a lot. We map the reporting workflow around them.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your test and MES data
Named engineer
Pre-disposition
After launch
Agent Care available

Nestack Agents · Manufacturing and test

AGT-EL-11 · Agent Care available after launch

Build a test agent

Four questions so the call starts from your actual setup — then pick a time that suits you.

About you
Your lines

No obligation. We’ll map the workflow, name the automation boundary and tell you if an agent is the wrong answer.